Talk:Jesse Dirkhising/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Comparison with Matthew Shepard 1.1 Merger with "Bias" section 2 Accusations of bias section is pretty wobbly 3 Question to Strothra Regarding Removal of My External Link 4 Archiving talk pages 5 External links review

Comparison with Matthew Shepard

The most salient difference between the Shepard case and this one is that while Shepard's murderers were driven to kill by hate, the boy's rape and death was a sex crime. It was repulsive, unconscionable — and the predictable pastime of perverted criminals... Matthew Shepard died not because of an all-too-common sex crime, but because of prejudice. Essentially, Shepard was lynched — taken from a bar, beaten and left to die because he was the vilified "other," whom society has often cast as an acceptable target of abuse; Dirkhising was just "another" to a pair of deviants. And while child abuse is unfortunately no big news, lynching still is."

What is common is that the assailants did not respect the victim's rights. Matthew Shepard, whatever his assailants thought of his behaviour, had the right to life and liberty, and his life was taken away, his liberty to be who he chose was taken away. Jesse Dirkhising had the right to be what he wanted to be, but to satisfy the perversions of his assailants, he was taken, tied up and abused, and his welfare ignored to the point that he died. Matthew Shepard's assailants should never have interfered in Matthew's life; they should have left him at liberty. Jesse's assailants should have let Jesse go about his way and not taken him in and abused him.

The silly new "Matthew Shepard Law" elevates Matthew above Jesse, saying that Matthew's life was worth more, when they should be the same. The silly new law institutionalizes society's bias against Jesse. GBC 20:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That's very interesting commentary on your part, but can you please tell us why you chose to put it here? It adds nothing to the encyclopedia or the article, all it really does is express your negative opinion of the law and personal POV. I'm sure sites like free republic would welcome that sort of commentary, or you could even start a blog to air your opinions. Looking at your userpage, you say you believe in defending the right to state opinions that are not universally accepted. That is quite honorable and I applaud you for it.

Fortunately (or unfortunately), Wikipedia is not a soapbox, so you should try to keep your focus on contributing facts and not your opinions. AniMate 21:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Merger with "Bias" section

I merged the Matthew Shepard section with the "Bias" section, for two reasons:

1. Most - in fact, practically all - accusations about bias in this case have compared it to the Shepard case.

1. The "Bias" section had very little content and presented only one POV.

66.183.165.57 17:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Accusations of bias section is pretty wobbly

This is the first I've heard of this article, or this case, and what sticks out as needing wikifying is the "Accusations of bias" section. The quotes _seem_ inflamatory and POV as if the point that two men might be gay and murdered the boy wasn't obvious. The Nexus and Google numbers are also wonky and, to me, detract from the point of the article. Much more could be said with far fewer words. I would hope the thrust of the article would be to share the information not prove to the world that men rape boys. Also the comparison to the Matthew Shepherd case seems, I want to say flimsy, for this article it may make sense to point out that the coverage was compared but then move on. This is _pedophilia_, a tragic case of a young victim's life cut short. Matthew Shepherd was an _adult_ trying to get laid in a gay bar who was savagely beaten in _hate crime_ by several men trying to beat up a queer. Let's also remember that Jesse Dirkhising's family can read this. Perhaps the whole matter can be tempered with some respect for a child who was brutalized then died. Benjiboi 03:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The point isn't to "prove to the world that men rape boys," but to focus on why the Dirkhising case is notable which is - ironically - because of the fact that it received so little attention as being notable by the press at the same time frame of the Shepard case. This fact - largely exploited for political ends by conservative outlets - is what propelled this case to national attention and notability. For articles to be included in Wiki they must establish notability of the subject matter. --Strothra 03:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I appreciate you pointing that out because the article didn't make it clear which is probably part of the problem. I still stand by what I wrote though, as the section needs work to bring out that clarity that you were able to do in less than thirty words. Benjiboi 03:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I definitely wasn't arguing against your point that it needs work, only the intent of the article. --Strothra 04:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Question to Strothra Regarding Removal of My External Link

Why?

You included a link that directed me to the WIKIPEDIA standards for objectivity/impartiality, so clearly you believed the information was biased.

What I don't know is why.

As a WIKIPEDIA old-timer, you would do new members a great service by explaining your rationale in cases such as this; experiences like this could cause the loss of community members who actually might have had something valid to contribute.

So please help me understand... what don't you like about my link?

If it's the fact that the link directs to a page on the youthbeware site, then I will host the content elsewhere and link to that.

If it's because you believe the content itself is not fair/impartial, then why have you allowed other links to remain, when the articles to which they point are clearly biased? The WorldNetDaily article and The Traditional Values Coalition websites and the linked articles on them make no secret of their own agendas. It was my understanding that articles in the External Links section, being clearly NOT part of WIKIPEDIA, were included to give readers a deeper understanding of an article and/or a broader context within which to experience it.

If that wasn't why you removed my link, then perhaps it was a matter of credentials?

I have a degree in journalism. I have worked 20 years as a nonfiction writer, following work as both a newspaper reporter (police beat) and a magazine assistant editor. I have spent 200+ hours researching the Dirkhising case, poring over thousands of documents and assimilating information. The article to which I linked provides direct references on the bibliography page for ALL included source material, including twelve newspaper articles for which I paid Lexis/Nexis to gain access. I continue to expand the information there.

Having been an avid user on the 'take' side of WIKIPEDIA for some time, I wanted to give back to the community on a subject about which I have a bit more expertise than does the average visitor. It was my belief that readers of the WIKIPEDIA article might benefit from the results of my research, particularly in light of concerns previously expressed here that the current article focuses heavily on the media storm following Jesse Dirkhising's death and reveals practically nothing about who he was. I have worked very hard to get a sense of who he was, and am still working at it, and I have included in my account a great deal of biographical information that isn't available to most readers elsewhere on the web. I opted not to add my information to the main article after seeing the previous arguments about the article, especially since most of my sources are newspaper articles and not web pages that readers could easily click to, anyway, and so I opted for the External Link. Nonetheless, I assure you that my research is sound--I have a professional reputation to maintain--and I can provide the necessary documentation.

I need to know what your issue is before I can address it and make my factual (newspaper-based) core of information available to WIKIPEDIA readers who want to know about Jesse Dirkhising.

Nayehi 07:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

That link does not come from a journalistic source. If anything, it reads as an op-ed. Still, it is either a personal website or amateur organization, thus violating standards of authoritative sources. Self-published sources are only admissible when created by an established expert - see WP:V#SELF. Please further note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a news outlet. --Strothra 13:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I included the information as an 'External Link'--which is not a 'source'. That being said, I take from this discussion the inference that I should roll the factual information and its sources into the original document. I am under no delusions about WIKIPEDIA being a news outlet. My point was simply that news articles offer valuable information about this subject that is not available elsewhere. Clearly you feel a sense of ownership about this article--which was the main reason I didn't edit it in the first place--and so I will leave you to it. I urge you to check out the sources I referenced in my bibliography because including some of that information would greatly improve the article. Otherwise, you may want to consider changing the name to 'Media Controversy Surrounding the Death of Jesse Dirkhising' or something along those lines, because this WIKIPEDIA entry as it stands now is about that, and not about Jesse Dirkhising. Other articles named for a person on WIKIPEDIA include some background information on those people. This page has none. When I read WIKIPEDIA etiquette, it suggested contacting members before reverting their edits. It would have been nice if you'd contacted me rather than simply taking away my link and making me feel unwelcome. I was only trying to help. Nayehi 16:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Minor administrative tasks such as source and link clean-up is done without contacting those who added the material being removed. That etiquette would be expected of someone who was reverting substantial material contributed by another editor - this is often done in order to avoid an edit war. The intention is not to make you feel unwelcome, but to speed up and ease the pace of article maintenance and compliance with Wiki policy. Unfortunately, this is often the consequence when the contributor is new to Wikipedia. So, take no offense. No one said that the article does not need work, but within the confines of the few policies and guidelines that exist on Wiki.

While the link added is not to a site notable enough for inclusion, some of its citations are notable - these can be included. Addressing the general content of the article, please remember that the notability guidelines of Wiki have a direct relation to article content. Dirkhising's notability is due to the story behind the media coverage or lack thereof. Thus, the bulk of the article is to focus on that event. If the article were shifted to be moreso a biography, then it would be violating the undue weight restrictions of Wiki articles by addressing too much of information not directly linked to his notability. A good article will briefly identify the individual, establish notability, and expand upon notability. --Strothra 19:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Archiving talk pages

Can someone more familiar with this article please archive some of the outdated talk threads so those working on it can read more clearly what the current issues seem to be? Benjiboi 17:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Everything above Comparison w. Matthew Shepard should be archived. I was involved in the other discussions which have now died out and those were quite a while ago. --Strothra 19:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Benjiboi 00:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

External links review

• [www.freerepublic.com/forum/a382abf9f7001.htm The Affidavit in the Jesse Dirkhising Case] Parental Discretion Advised
• Media Coverage Criticism
• The tragic story of Jesse Dirkhising - WND
• Traditional Values Coalition Article on the conviction of the murderers of Dirkhising
• [www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3abb65202359.htm Editorial on the impact of the murder on homosexual culture]
• The Dirkhising Case: An Obligation to Youth
• "Not a hate crime", by Joseph Farah, WorldNetDaily.com

The above links all seem to come from POV sources, let's ensure they are covered as acceptable by WP:EL before re-adding. Possible another source could be used instead. Benjiboi 00:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Anytime I see a "Parental discretion advised" tag, it's almost a given that it's a bad link. I can see maybe one of those as an example of the alleged bias of the media, but that's about it. AniMate 00:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I wasn't able to find great online sources as the news articles are just a wee bit too old and have to be bought from their archives so I'm digging through books first and after a bit of an article overhaul will look at what, if anything, the links have to offer. Benjiboi 02:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

IMO the whole "Matthew Shephard" section needs to go. A single sentence, perhaps, on how the two are related, but none of that information is actually about Dirkhising. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually used to think the same thing, however in researching it (and I'm still not done), Dirkhising's case was only brought up and wouldn't be an entry here except that it was referenced and continually compared to Shepherd. With "conservatives'" view that generally this case should be treated the same as Shepherd and those opposed demonstrating the reasons why it shouldn't. I also suspect that the death was an accident but I haven't seen a good RS to back that reliably. In any case almost everything ties the two together. Benjiboi 00:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I've tied to address the above concern in the lede to have more clarity. Benjiboi 03:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've re-checked through all of the above links, mostly they are POV-pushing from one side or another and none are terribly good as reliable sources and that combined with that the rest of the article is now much better sourced renders them unneeded. I've completed this phase of the overhaul and research and consider this topic thread done. Benjiboi 02:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)